My own experience, which I think is fairly generalizable, is that within the course of a single conversation hardly anybody ever changes their mind — including me.

He says he changes his opinion over time, though. What works for me is new information. Even if I'm not persuaded originally, new info might convince me - but maybe not so much because it's new but because it's a crutch, an excuse that lets me shed my stupid original opinion. Anyway, good for Kevin for reacting to Libya.

having studied childhood development and compared pre schools in various countries, this is something that needs to be learned in childhood, or worked on VERY hard as an adult in order to be "easy". Preschools where children are encouraged to explore conflict with their full emotional reactions but guided toward analysis and testing of conflicting ideas learn that conflict is not something to be avoided, but that it is necessary for integrating various perspectives. Having feelings and the freedom to express them honestly seems essential for learning that different perspectives are not threatening to ones self image, and in fact help one to shed ideas that were originally useful, but inadequate in other circumstances. Having a self image that is not attached to specific beliefs is crucial for dialogue and emotional and intellectual growth. Fortunately science has that as a given and in spite of all the biases and stubbornness many scientists bring into their work, open-mindedness is enough of the overall culture of science to usually win out in the end.

All true enough, but what happens when your 'belief' is actually also a collective construction we refer to as 'science'? Which ain't supposed to be a 'belief' in the first place.

What I do believe is that, if the AGW theory is ever overturned (which could be a senstivity issue only, surely?) this will come out of what we call 'science' also. Not the thinktanks and those on their payrolls. Many of us won't want to believe it, but I don't doubt that we will eventually.

PS "The Philosophers have only interpreted the world; the point, however, is to change it." Not unlike Yoda's "Do, or do not. There is no 'try'", really. Don't let your deep-self-questioning mean the self-confident barbarians get to take over while you're busy agonizing, either ;-)

I did not like the video and I actually think the goal of being reasonable and compromising is a complete waste of time at this point.

The republicans are trying to cut spending (besides defense) and the democrats are trying to create new taxes to bring in more revenue to the government.

I'm a conservative and I am furious with the Republicans right now. There's no reason we can't cut defense. What do we have jets for? But the democrats right now are acting like complete robots. Why isn't there someone running on the democrat ticket to oppose Obama? I think he's a nice guy, good husband and has a great family. Concerning the economy, he has no clue what he is doing. The description of him being like a college professor on this topic is dead on accurate.

Rabett Run

Subscribe Rabett Run

The Bunny Trail By Email

Contributors

Eli Rabett

Eli Rabett is a not quite failed professorial techno-bunny, a chair election from retirement, at a wanna be research university that has a lot to be proud of but has swallowed the Kool-Aid. The students are naive but great and the administrators vary day-to-day between homicidal and delusional. His colleagues are smart, but they have a curious inability to see the holes that they dig for themselves. Prof. Rabett is thankful that they occasionally heed his pointing out the implications of the various enthusiasms that rattle around the department and school. Ms. Rabett is thankful that Prof. Rabett occasionally heeds her pointing out that he is nuts.